He said he paid Dr Gribkowsky £10 million because the banker insinuated that he would create difficulties with tax authorities.

Mr Justice Newey concluded that payments made were a "bribe".

He said they were made because Mr Ecclestone had entered into a "corrupt agreement" with the banker in 2005.

But he said no loss to Constantin had been proved and therefore the company's claim failed.

Mr Ecclestone is facing trial in Germany later this year after being accused of bribery. Those allegations also centre around claims relating to Dr Gribkowsky.

"Questions were asked, I answered them and I told the truth," said Mr Ecclestone after the ruling.

"This case was about the value of some shares. It was nothing to do with whether I did or didn't tell the truth, or whether I was unreliable or not."

He said he had "no idea" whether Mr Justice Newey's comments would affect any trial in Germany.

And he added: "The judge in England didn't have all of the central witnesses, and I wasn't there to defend whether I'm a liar or unreliable."

A spokesman for Mr Ecclestone said later: "The judge has expressed his opinion that on the balance of probabilities there was an unlawful agreement made with Dr Gribkowsky and that payments that Mr Ecclestone made for Dr Gribkowsky's benefit were a bribe, but this view is not underpinned by reliable evidence. The source of these allegations is Dr Gribkowsky himself, who did not give evidence in this case."

The spokesman added: "As such, the judge's opinion is expressed in the light of hearing only partial evidence that has not been properly tested."

And he went on: "Mr Ecclestone welcomes that he will have the opportunity to defend these bribery allegations properly in proceedings due to begin in Munich in April, when the relevant witnesses can be compelled to attend and be cross?examined by his lawyers. He is confident that he will be acquitted."

Mr Justice Newey said in his ruling he had been analysing civil proceedings and had made findings on the basis of the ''balance of probabilities'' - not on the basis of ''beyond reasonable doubt'' required in a criminal trial.